4 Answers
4

I would not say this, but some people would. The "pulls" is not counterfactual, but the "would" usually is.

2. If Miami pulled this off, it would be something.

This is normal for the counterfactual case.

3. If Miami will pull this off, it will be something.

This is not idiomatic in any variety of English, as far as I know. We don't use "will" in a conditional clause.

The usual form for 1 and 3 would be

4. If Miami pull this off, it will be something

So the canonical forms are 4 (present, future) and 2 (past, conditional). The difference in meaning is subtle, but exists: in 4 the event seems rather more likely than in 2 (which I have described as 'counterfactual').

+1 Nice summary. Technically 2 isn't necessarily counterfactual (because it can happen, it's just that the speaker thinks it's unlikely). A strict counterfactual would be "If Miami had pulled this off, it would have been something" (with an implicit "but they didn't").
–
psmearsJun 13 '11 at 15:28

@psmears: you're right, in the future everything is irrealis. But the distinctionin meaning is still there.
–
Colin FineJun 13 '11 at 16:55

4 is just wrong, Miami is singular here (one team), even though it has multiple members.
–
Ben VoigtJun 14 '11 at 12:23

@Ben Voigt: but we can use the plural form all the same for teams, companies and other collectives; "Chelsea are the champions", "Microsoft are evil", and so on.
–
user1579Jun 14 '11 at 12:40

@Rhodri: There's an implied word in those sentences: "Chelsea players are the champions." "Microsoft managers are evil." That doesn't work in this scenario, because individual players don't "pull it off", the team does as a unit.
–
Ben VoigtJun 14 '11 at 12:42

what about a condition being unreal or improbable in the future ?
–
Anderson SilvaJun 13 '11 at 11:57

@Anderson Silva: Good question. Edited the answer. We use the past tense with would to denote improbability in the present or the future. (I am implying that my being you, my winning the lottery, and Miami pulling this off are all improbable or impossible.)
–
TragicomicJun 13 '11 at 12:10

@Anderson Silva, @Tragicomic: There are lots of ways of indicating the future without using the verb tense, and in English, if you want to specifically indicate the future in conditionals, you have to use these. When you do that, you discover that the past tense doesn't work, at least not in my dialect. (Imagine substituting pulled for were to pull in the following sentence.) One correct way of doing this: If Miami were to pull this off in the next five minutes, it would be something.
–
Peter Shor Jun 13 '11 at 13:03

@Peter Shor: While using the future subjunctive (as in your example) is correct, in hypothetical conditionals it is also correct to use the simple past to talk about unlikely and impossible situations. (Also see the example in @Colin Fine's example in his answer.) If he went/were to go to the party, he would meet her as opposed to if he goes to the party, he will meet her.
–
TragicomicJun 13 '11 at 13:08

@Tragicomic: "If Miami pulled this off in the next five minutes, it would be something." really sounds wrong to me, while "If he went to the party tomorrow, he would meet her." sounds fine. I'm confused.
–
Peter Shor Jun 13 '11 at 13:13

With would, we use the past subjunctive even when we are talking about the future, if we want it to sound unlikely or impossible.
–
TragicomicJun 13 '11 at 13:26

@Tragicomic: That's the present subjunctive. Past subjunctive: "If Miami had pulled it off, it would have been something."
–
Ben VoigtJun 13 '11 at 14:34

@Ben Voigt: Present subjunctive: "It is important he go to the party." "When Miami wins a game, I throw a party." Past subjunctive: "If Miami pulled this off, it would be something." Past perfect subjunctive or pluperfect subjunctive: "If Miami had pulled it off, it would have been something."
–
TragicomicJun 14 '11 at 6:45

@Tragicomic: I guess you're right about the past perfect. Only: "It is important that he go to the party." Sounds really awkward otherwise.
–
Ben VoigtJun 14 '11 at 12:21